Research from the University of Essex, published in Nature Climate Change, suggests that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the UN body tasked with delivering authoritative assessments on global warming — risks "eroding" trust in climate science through the phrasing it uses to communicate risk.

Phrases like ‘unlikely' weaken public confidence

The IPCC frequently describes low-probability events, such as extreme sea-level rise, as "unlikely" or having a "low likelihood"— meaning less than a 33% chance.

But survey data from more than 4,000 UK residents shows the public associates these words with scepticism or disagreement, not with scientific probability.

Lead researcher Professor Marie Juanchich says this framing makes many respondents feel scientists are divided, or that the scenarios being discussed are implausible exaggerations.

A gap that fuels misinformation

The study warns that this misunderstanding cuts across political identity and even across levels of belief in climate change itself — creating a broad, fertile ground for misinformation.

Because the public hears "unlikely" as "not real" or "not worth worrying about," misleading claims that downplay climate risks can spread more easily.

"Misinformation" refers to false or misleading information shared without malicious intent — different from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive. But both thrive when scientific communication is unclear, the researchers say.

Simple language shifts could transform public understanding

Across eight experiments, the study found that replacing phrases like "unlikely" with clearer wording — for example, "there is a small chance" — significantly improves how people interpret climate risks.

The revised phrasing encourages people to focus on why an event might happen and increases confidence in scientific predictions.

"Low-probability events can still have devastating consequences," Juanchich explains.
"A 20% chance of extreme sea-level rise is absolutely not something communities can ignore — yet calling it ‘unlikely' risks giving the opposite impression."

A call for clearer climate communication

The researchers emphasise that the IPCC's scientific rigour is not in question. But they argue that its communication style may obscure the seriousness of threats, particularly as political polarisation and populist narratives slow climate action globally.

Juanchich says improving language clarity could help bridge divides:

"We need to come together to address climate change, despite rising political tensions. Clearer communication is essential. There is no planet B."